...argue that the caucuses (which they didn't express any concern with when Bill was running in and winning them) are now suddenly undemocratic and disenfranchise voters. They have had over 15 years as major figures within the Party to do something about it, including 8 years in the WH when presumably they would have had considerable party influence. But, it is especially curious that the contention is that people are somehow being denied the opportunity to participate in the process when, in fact, participation is UP exponentially in each caucus state. In some locations, there has been as much as a 10 fold increase in the numbers of participants. Now I know the Clinton spin is that only wealthy people who have lots of leisure time can participate, but any honest and reasonable person can look at the stats and see that is not true. They come from all demographics and their common link is that Senator Obama motivated and mobilized enough of them to take the time and make the effort to stand up for him when he needed them.

If Senator Clinton's alleged supporters cannot be bothered now to make the effort on her behalf, when it is of historic importance, what on earth makes her or anyone think they will be able to find the time in November. At least we know Obama's people are committed.

and it is readily apparent to me that corporated media propaganda worked on more than just repukes. I am no Hillary fan - I detest her views on the war and outsourcing - but the sheer hatred for HRC is beyond all reason

As long as they've been the way they currently are, then they've always been amazingly flawed, unrepresentative, disenfranchising amateur exercises.

I only delved into them this year, but am STILL in shock that these crock of shit things exist. Who has or hasn't supported them in the past is irrelevant. What matters is the process and its integrity, and there simply isn't any. That holds true now or 10 years ago. They should be COMPLETELY done away with.

30. And yet going into these caucuses, the playing field was level for all candidates

Everybody knew how they worked, how to work them, how to get them to work for you. All of this was a known quantity to everybody involved. The simple fact of the matter is that Obama has had a better game plan on how to approach them. Hillary on the other hand dismissed them.

To try and call foul at this juncture is disingenuous, and to do so comes across as whining. If you're in a caucus state and don't like them, well in the next few years you can get involved with like minded people and change them if you can. If the caucus states don't change, then they're obviously happy with them, and despite your complaints, it is up to the state party apparatus to decide these matters, not you, not the national folks. You have to respect that decision, take into consideration for future elections and move on.

32. So you are wanting the states to have no control of how party politics are run in their own state?

How very und/Democratic of you. You not only don't have the power to change them, you don't have that right to change them either.

What I find laughable is that now, when caucuses aren't going your way, they're suddenly "unfair" and "lack integrity". Yet if Hillary was winning we wouldn't be hearing a peep from you on this issue. The hypocrisy is hilarious, however the whining has gotten pathetic.

And the sense that you, from a non-caucus state, are entitled to meddle in the political structure of another state is ludicrous on the face of it. Not surprising though, Hillary supporters are much like their candidate, authoritarian, autocratic, and think that they're entitled to do as they wish and have what they want.

"So you are wanting the states to have no control of how party politics are run in their own state?"

I never said such a thing, anywhere. Your insinuation of such is ridiculous. What I said is that we should all lobby to have them removed. Did I say we shouldn't do so on a state to state level? Oh, I didn't? Oh, you mean you over-reacted and read into something that wasn't there, when the intent was quite simple to understand? Holy knee jerk. Get a grip.

"How very und/Democratic of you. You not only don't have the power to change them, you don't have that right to change them either."

ROFLMAO!!!! Oh you're a piece of work. I'm being undemocratic by pushing for the removal of a highly undemocratic process and installation of a far more democratic one? Now there's some brilliant logic if I've ever seen it. And I have no right to change them? Are you nuts? Of course I do. All of us do. All of us that care about the integrity of elections have a right to change processes that are undemocratic and disenfranchising. We have to do it in the right ways, and on the state level, but for you to make claim that I have no right to try is laughable and highly ignorant.

"What I find laughable is that now, when caucuses aren't going your way, they're suddenly "unfair" and "lack integrity". Yet if Hillary was winning we wouldn't be hearing a peep from you on this issue."

There you go being ignorantly assumptive again. Do you always think this little when you post and react in such a knee jerk manner? I mean, you're just parroting the same empty logic that others here have done, as if there ISN'T a bunch of things totally flawed and inadequate about the caucus process. Hey, here's a news flash for ya: It isn't US that are complaining about them because they aren't going our way, it is YOU and others who are defending them because they ARE going your way. You forsake all the truth in their inadequacy and defend disenfranchisement due to your own selfish reasons of them working in your favor. Now THAT'S pathetic. See, contrary to your highly ignorant assertion about my intent, I've only truly learned about the caucus process this year. From the MOMENT I learned about them in detail, my jaw literally dropped that these things are allowed to exist. I IMMEDIATELY recognized how flawed and nonsensical they are, and couldn't believe that we, as democrats, who are supposed to care about the process, could actually condone and sanction these things. And that's how I felt BEFORE Obama started being favored by them. So your assumption was completely off the mark. See, it doesn't matter who they favor or why someone does or doesn't want them. That would all be ad hominem bullshit. The FACT is, that in spite of any of that, on their own merits and for their own reasons, they are poor, inadequate, disenfranchising and undemocratic processes. That stands true no matter who does or doesn't like them or which candidate they do or don't favor. They have ALWAYS been undemocratic, unfair, and have lacked integrity, and your insinuation that I'm creating that due to their favoring Obama is quite naive. They are what they are, and what they are is simply not good enough.

"The hypocrisy is hilarious, however the whining has gotten pathetic."

There is no hypocrisy on my end. If anything, it is on your end. You act so smug and righteous and try and put forth that it is us that are whining and complaining solely because they favor Obama, when in reality it is YOU who is being disingenuous and selfish by resisting our concerns, solely because you like the fact that they favor Obama. That's the fucking fact. You and others are blatantly projecting when you turn it on us. The process is pathetic. That's a fact. You simply don't care, because here and now they are favoring YOUR candidate. How pathetic and selfish of you. But to turn that logic around on us is quite laughable, when it is quite easy to see just who the selfish ones are as it relates to liking or disliking the process. Any intelligent person would recognize the inherent flaws within the caucus process. It is obvious as hell, when someone defends them so passionately, that they do so out of selfishness due to their favoring the candidate they like. It's so transparent, and I laugh my ass off at your insinuation that it is us, rather than you, that are being closed minded and hypocritical. What a hoot!

"And the sense that you, from a non-caucus state, are entitled to meddle in the political structure of another state is ludicrous on the face of it."

Again, are you nuts? As an American, as someone who cares about the integrity of elections, I have EVERY right to voice my concerns about the caucus process. I have EVERY right to lobby and try and convince others on their state level to rid ourselves of these pathetic events. We ALL have such a right to do such things, and your assertion that we don't is one of the most ignorant and misguided things I've ever seen here. The caucus process disenfranchises voters, is lacking in integrity, and is undemocratic in a whole lot of ways. To say "tough! Nothing you can do! It's none of your business!" is just plain dumb on its face. It really is, and I'm amazed you could even utter such crap.

"Not surprising though, Hillary supporters are much like their candidate, authoritarian, autocratic, and think that they're entitled to do as they wish and have what they want."

Yes. How DARE we care about the election process. How dare we want processes that are fair, democratic, non disenfranchising, and that have integrity. I mean, HOW FUCKING DARE WE. Seriously, do you have any idea how monumentally stupid those comments sound? Get a grip honey, you are making yourself look quite silly.

Caucuses are horribly inadequate processes that all of us here should come together in getting rid of. We should all care about the integrity of elections regardless of candidates. We should care about having processes that are fair and not disenfranchising. We should all do what we can to lobby in the respective states for the complete removal of these amateur processes, and demand nothing less than a real election, where everyone has a chance to vote and can do so anonymously.

So yeah, you couldn't have possibly been more wrong and misguided in your reply. It was mind boggling in its lack of logic and critical thought. Hopefully, if you choose to reply again, you do so a bit more intelligently next time.

My complaints about caucuses, and the inherent flaws within them, have nothing to do with the current candidates and all to do with the reality of caucuses. If you could take your partisan bias blinders off and turn on the switch in your mind that allows even the slightest bit of critical thinking to take place, you'd be able to realize for yourself why they're so flawed. This is something we all should agree on here.

For most of our history, caucuses were the way that parties nominated. And to me, saying caucuses are undemocratic is like saying that town meetings are undemocratic. they're not. they're the purest form of democracy. I'm sorry that Vermont no longer has caucuses. Having said that, I do think switching to an all primary system is a better way to go, much as I love real hands on democracy. However, Hillary Clinton never had a bad word to say about caucuses- until she started losing them. She's noting but a hypocrite on this issue. You know damned well if she were winning them she'd be praising the caucus system as the greatest thing under the stars.

37. I wouldn't call it "interesting", more like "frustrating" or "infuriating"!

Also, I tried to use the term "racist", but apparently calling things "racist" when there is racial bias gets messages deleted, whereas throwing around terms like "sexist" against everyone who disagrees with you is ok.

I am just sick of the behaviour of the HRCCampaign and the Hillary supporters, as they make Democrats look stupid and infantile. I am also sick of the people who want Hillary to win - even if it means destroying the party, having race riots across the country, or having eight more years of Repuke shit.

We've just put up with eight years of a "my way or the highway" presidency. Why would we want another tone deaf "decider" in the White House?

That's what's so appealing about Obama. He isn't making it about him, he's embracing a coalition of people who want to have a say in how their government is run. Obama is offering the first true government of the people we have seen in long time.

Hillary Clinton is offering to make all our decisions for us because she knows so much more than the American people.

Sounds like a Hillary administration will be 4 MORE YEARS of the same.

Maybe Clinton is so willing to embrace McCain because she understands him and will just never get Obama. Imagine someone wanting to give the American people a real choice in the direction of their government. What a silly concept? Democracy isn't really supposed to be an actual democracy, after all. Apparently, Mrs. Clinton believes what we really need is a new decider and she'll do anything to be that person. Anything.

Clinton doesn't have a problem with the concept of rules, just rules not of her own making. She is running specifically because she wants us to follow her rules.

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.